It's NOT Barack Obama.

It's: Brock O'Bama.

"Broc" is the Irish for "Badger"

"O" means "son of." [A variant of "mac," which means the same thing].

And "Bama" means "Bama."

So: Broc O'Bama.

Or: Badger. Son of Bama.

In Irish folklore, "Badgers" are famous for ferreting out The Truth.

It’s said that staring too hard at a ‘broc’ causes weird side-effects. For instance, some people start wondering if ‘brocks’ are REALLY black. Maybe they just seem that way ‘cos of the strange lighting. (Celtic twilight?) Don't believe me? Try it! See? It’s REALLY hard to tell. Even other badgers are confused!

Still others are convinced that staring will inexorably reveal the content of their character and they wisely back off. I mean, how many of us could take that kind of test without blinking? Few actually survive, and most just run and hide. Even other badgers blink!

The O'Bamas have deep roots in Irish-America, and not just in Chicago. Who, for instance, can forget the (n)ever popular Al O'Bama? Al made the South what it once was, and some say that if Broc (“Barack”) can somehow close the gap with Al, that crazy, age-old family feud will finally die and badgers of All Creeds and Colors will live together in Peace, Mississippi. Who knows?

Personally, I believe it. All of it.

And I know my other Black Irish brothers (Shaq O’Neal, Eddie Murphy, et al) will agree.

Like me, they've stared down the 'Brock' without blinking.

Now, it's your turn America!

But sometimes I think it's important to join the critical mass.

I'll admit my prejudices here. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and I can't stand Hillary Clinton. I've liked John Edwards in the past, but some of his recent comments on gay marriage have alienated me. Kucinich lacks gravitas (I mean, the guy basically pulled a "Win a dream date with a Congressman" promotion . . .). The faceless others -- Vilsack, Chris Dodd -- don't seem charismatic enough to catch fire. Don't get me started on Joe Biden.

Assuming Al Gore doesn't run (and I hope he does; if he ends up with an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, he'll make a one-of-a-kind candidate), who does this process of elimination leave me with but Barack Obama?

"Just a handsome face," says one Salon.com poster -- and a million other amateur hack pundits. How insulting -- to Obama, and to voters like me. I've heard Obama speak in detail on a number of issues (his lengthy interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation was particularly impressive -- off-the-cuff and very persuasive), and he strikes me as intelligent, thoughtful, and -- importantly -- genuinely and deeply liberal in his politics.

That voice -- and, sure, that face -- are the voice and face that the world will hear and see if Obama becomes our president. After eight years of Bush, what an exciting change it would be to be represented by somebody who doesn't disgrace and humiliate us.

I can't figure out, then, why so many people -- in the media, in the blogosphere, and in snarky, self-satisfied pieces like this and others in Salon -- are looking down their noses at me because I'm not seeking out reasons to dislike and distrust Obama. Why would I be looking for reasons not to be fired up about an unapologetic intellectual who might also have some campaign skills?

The racist subtext of this piece goes beyond the withdrawn-but-not-explained "uppity" tag. So Obama isn't black enough. Who cares? So he "wanted people to know he went to Harvard." Please. Earlier this year, in another non-starter of a scandal, we learned that he "once hired an intern who was recommended by a lobbyist who was later disgraced." Wait -- what?

The Republicans will -- I hope -- have plenty of time to tear Obama down with irrelevant smear attacks. In the meantime, can we please try to transcend the dumb-asshole politics that the GOP has perfected? This is our primary process, not theirs. Smarten up, Salon. Jesus.

I am outraged; Salon just lost its remaining credibility.

It's telling how a candidate like Obama draws the racists out of the supposedly "liberal" woodwork...

Just goes to show that even in 2007, the notion of strong black leadership still terrifies the establishment... do you have a guilty conscience, that your fear drives you to try to tear down a person of color who rises above negative stereotypes?

I guess if he had saggy pants and bad grammar you'd like him better, and wouldn't find him threatening? Maybe if Obama was poor, helpless and poorly educated, you wouldn't be calling him "uppity" in your headlines? Would he have your approval then?

Salon, you make me sick. You're part of the problem in this country.

After re-reading the piece, it seems to me that for all his complaints about other reporters "drinking the Obama juice" with their descriptions of the candidate's "tall elegance," McClelland spends an indordinate amount of time discussing Obama's body language and voice (and McClellan's seemingly ESP-aided divinations of Obama's moods) rather than the message, or even really the man, behind them.

I don't know what this means for Obama, but if McClelland is prepared to make an argument that all of this has great meaning for our presidential picks, i would ask him this question, and expect a serious response:

What would you write about if a disabled person someday ran for President?

Stephen Hawking, anyone?

More importantly, isn't all this ridiculous devotion to the idea of "charisma" another way of admitting that substance has no meaning in our elections? If that's true, why aren't we (meaning you too, Salon editors and writers) trying to do better? I want a charismatic candidate as much as the next long-suffering Democrat, but one of the many lessons we should have learned from the presidency of George W. Bush is this:

A Presidential candidate who appears charismatic (at least, to a large percentage of the population) but lacks substance makes for a disastrous president.

That's not to compare Obama to Bush in any way, but Salon's not doing its readers any favors with this kind of lightweight "political analysis," and readers(/citizens) don't do themselves any favors by paying more attention to issues of body language and vocal intonation than to what a candidate has done and says he/she will do.